Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

There are multiple issues with any of these texts:

#1 Author's intent
#2 Author's sources
#3 Author's credibility
#4 Integrity of transmission

Just for starters. Doesn't really matter what any given work says. Doesn't matter if it says, "Jesus Christ was a real person I swear it because I met him and shook his hand!" (As 1 Peter practically does).

All of these issues have to be assessed. You can't just say "The writer said so, so it much be true!"

Rather, it is quite clear that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was opposed to Peter and had every intention to undermining his authority and credibility. For the writer of Mark, Peter is a foil. The writer of Mark wasn't embarrassed to say that Peter abandoned Jesus, he was intentionally throwing him under the bus!

RG true but that doesn't make Mark a Paulinist opposed to Peter
There could have been other groups also opposed to him and whatever he represented
All we can say is that Paul and Mark shared an opposition to the disciples
The relationship between Paul and Mark is kind of close, kind of similar. Maybe Mark wrote with Paul's followers in mind + whatever he believed

In any historical reconstruction it is those disciples who are the only possible credible witnesses
But one could argue that they provided numerous sources to Mark who the author then undermines even though they provided those sources
This would suggest something like:
1. Certain sources existed in the names one or more disciples
2. Those sources were incorporated into Mark while undermining those disciples

A good reason why 2 happened would be if Mark's author had ideas he wished to present that conflicted with the original sources
If, perhaps, he was a Paul follower then Paul's interpretation would override anything else
There's still the possibility the very people being undermined in the gospels provided sources to them?

davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:40 am RG true but that doesn't make Mark a Paulinist opposed to Peter
There could have been other groups also opposed to him and whatever he represented

That wasn't my point. My point is that claiming something "must be true" because it is "embarrassing" or doesn't fit the author's agenda is a fallacy. From Dr. Sarah:

also ‘having done that, why would they not even show him making the pronouncements they wanted made?’

This statement assumes that the agenda of the writer is the same as the agenda of later Christians.

A common claim is made along these lines in regard to Peter. "The fact that the Gospels say that Peter abandoned Jesus means it must be true, because if it weren't true the Gospel writers wouldn't have invented such a claim since it undermines the authority of the church!"

But this of course assumes that the Gospel writers were writing from the perspective of the church.

Rather, it appears that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was intentionally trying to undermine Peter. The agenda of Mark is not aligned with the later church. Later Gospel writers like Matthew who copied from Mark were stuck with his narrative, but worked to soften the blow and excuse Peter's supposed actions. The role of Peter was developed by Catholics in spite of the narrative because they needed a figure from the set of original disciples to balance out the authority of Paul.

Clearly the agenda of the writer of Mark was to undermine Peter, James and John, along with anyone else. The writer of Mark wanted Paul to be seen as the only legitimate revealer of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And early readers of the narrative, like Marcion, understood and held this view. Marcion and other early Christians labeled as "heretics" by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus held the view that Paul was the only legitimate apostle. This view was clearly in line with Mark. But the proto-orthodox movement had to be able to spin the early material, which included the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline letters, while providing an alternative cast of champions who could be viewed as rightful heirs of the teachings of Jesus. Proto-orthodoxy didn't want one figure, especially a figure hailed by "heretics", to be the sole emissary of the Lord Jesus. They wanted the message of Jesus to have been spread far and wide by a broad group of people for teh same reason they championed four Gospels. The more witnesses, the more heirs to the message, the more followers, the more accounts of the ministry, the better. Instead of relying on the words of a single individual, they wanted to ensure that the message of Jesus could be trusted to have come from a large collection of witnesses and disciples, which granted credibility. The weakness of the "heretical" position is that it was reliant entirely on the teachings of a single individual, Paul alone. The Catholics developed a position where they could say, "We can trust that we have the true teachings of Jesus because they come down to us from all of his disciples, not just the word of one lone man."

So yes, Peter's denial of Jesus became a point of potential embarrassment (though they were able to spin it fairly well thanks to Matthew), but it was not a point of embarrassment for the author of Mark. It was that writer's very goal to undermine and discredit Peter.

So again, this goes back to Dr. Sarah's statement about why the writers of the Gospels would have written accounts that didn't even have Jesus say the things they wanted him to say. Well of course they wouldn't. The error in her thinking is assuming that what the writers wanted to say is what later proto-orthodox Christians would have wanted them to say. The Gospel of Matthew is really the only fully proto-orthodox Gospel. But even Matthew was constrained by what had come before him. Canonical Luke is a proto-orthodox takeover of an earlier narrative. Mark is of course not orthodox at all and runs counter to many orthodox positions. John was originally a gnostic Gospel that underwent orthodox revision when it was made a part of the four Gospel collection.

yes agreed. but it implies there were writings floating around in the names of those other disciples to which Mark was opposed
he is not opposed to Peter as such directly, he's opposed presumably to people who quote his authority and equally presumably are not fans of Paul
what's interesting is what those writings would have looked like

Mark doesn't have to be a complete creation although it could be, it could also be pulling in from earlier sources and it seems to most clearly in the parables. So was Mark almost completely new or was it pulling from other sources and reworking them in?

what is ironic is that any earlier source would have almost certainly been associated with those same disciples, who else was there?
so i know you don't agree Thomas is the source for the parables, but if it were then here's an example of exactly this ass-backwards phenomena

Is Mark just trying to make an acceptable Jesus for whoever his audience is contra to other presentations of him kicking around?
it's hard to argue there were no such alternatives when we see the apparent responses to other competing ideas all over the place in the NT

davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 7:19 am yes agreed. but it implies there were writings floating around in the names of those other disciples to which Mark was opposed
he is not opposed to Peter as such directly, he's opposed presumably to people who quote his authority and equally presumably are not fans of Paul
what's interesting is what those writings would have looked like

Mark doesn't have to be a complete creation although it could be, it could also be pulling in from earlier sources and it seems to most clearly in the parables. So was Mark almost completely new or was it pulling from other sources and reworking them in?

what is ironic is that any earlier source would have almost certainly been associated with those same disciples, who else was there?
so i know you don't agree Thomas is the source for the parables, but if it were then here's an example of exactly this ass-backwards phenomena

Is Mark just trying to make an acceptable Jesus for whoever his audience is contra to other presentations of him kicking around?
it's hard to argue there were no such alternatives when we see the apparent responses to other competing ideas all over the place in the NT

I don't think so. There are only two sources needed to produce Mark. The Jewish scriptures and the Pauline letters. Paul's opposition to Peter and other apostles is clearly evident in his own letters. Mark focuses on three disciples, Peter, James and John. These three are identified in the Pauline letters, and Mark's characterization of them corresponds to their characterization in the Pauline letters. The other disciples are all just made up to arrive at the magic number of 12 disciples. Judas is an interesting case, but clearly intended to represent the betrayal of Jesus by "all Judeans".

Every single parable in Mark is directly traced back to the Jewish scriptures. In no way was the wrier of Mark using any kind of "parable lists" or something like that. I've identified the scriptural source for every one. I think I posted here recently the primary inspiration for the use of parables in the Markan narrative, Ezekiel 17.

rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 8:10 am I don't think so. There are only two sources needed to produce Mark. The Jewish scriptures and the Pauline letters. Paul's opposition to Peter and other apostles is clearly evident in his own letters. Mark focuses on three disciples, Peter, James and John. These three are identified in the Pauline letters, and Mark's characterization of them corresponds to their characterization in the Pauline letters. The other disciples are all just made up to arrive at the magic number of 12 disciples. Judas is an interesting case, but clearly intended to represent the betrayal of Jesus by "all Judeans".

Every single parable in Mark is directly traced back to the Jewish scriptures. In no way was the wrier of Mark using any kind of "parable lists" or something like that. I've identified the scriptural source for every one. I think I posted here recently the primary inspiration for the use of parables in the Markan narrative, Ezekiel 17.

But if Paul and Mark spend time dealing with earlier opponents the story seems to go back to before Paul?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=301

JW:
Basically DocSarah is just following Price down the Rabbi's hole.

Skeptical input on the supposed historicity of that guy from the Christian Bible who's name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "Y" or "J" is primarily pointing out/demonstrating that the level of supposed history regarding Jesus is significantly less than Christian Bible scholarship has traditionally taught and the average Christian thinks. Not the conclusion that Jesus did not exist.

Using standard criteria for historical conclusions you have sources that say or imply that Jesus existed. Sources that say or imply that Jesus did not exist don't seem to exist. So it's pretty easy to say that the evidence favors Jesus existing. The problem in the discussion is that there is another historical conclusion. Uncertain. And there is a lot of that. Fer instance, Paul as source:

• 1) Contemporary? No.
  
  2) Confirmed? No.
  
  3) Credible? No.
  
  4) Credibly transmitted? No.

So the practical problem is not Skeptics like Price overstating the Skeptical position on HJ and having minimal effect on the public's belief on the subject, the practical problem is Skeptics like DocSarah understating the Skeptical observation that the evidence for HJ is significantly weaker than people think.

Case in point (so to speak) is DS's recent elevation of Paul to clear witness for HJ because our current translations show he wrote "brother of the lord". Based on standard criteria, Paul has little credibility. You've also got the next best source for HJ, GMark, that makes clear that Jesus' family did not support him. Skeptics should pick criteria for witness evidence instead of cherrys. As Coach said, "Do better".


Joseph

Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Skeptical input on the supposed historicity of that guy from the Christian Bible who's name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "Y" or "J" is primarily pointing out/demonstrating that the level of supposed history regarding Jesus is significantly less than Christian Bible scholarship has traditionally taught and the average Christian thinks. Not the conclusion that Jesus did not exist.

Using standard criteria for historical conclusions you have sources that say or imply that Jesus existed. Sources that say or imply that Jesus did not exist don't seem to exist. So it's pretty easy to say that the evidence favors Jesus existing. The problem in the discussion is that there is another historical conclusion. Uncertain. And there is a lot of that.

I share your general conclusion that the matter is uncertain (= it is seriously possible, not merely "not logically impossible" that Jesus wasn't a real man who actually lived). In my personal belief, it's 2:1 or less favoring historicism.

It is not the case, however, that "Sources that say or imply that Jesus did not exist don't seem to exist." It is reasonably clear that ancient Simonians existed, and the patristics say that Simonians believed that a historical Simon enacted the role that Christians attributed to their Jesus. I am not here to argue the merits of their position, just to point out that some in the guild are liable to exaggerate the evidentiary situation when speaking informally (albeit informally for attributed publication sometimes).

Case in point (so to speak) is DS's recent elevation of Paul to clear witness for HJ because our current translations show he wrote "brother of the lord". Based on standard criteria, Paul has little credibility.

Yes, I read Dr Sarah's analysis. Now that she's a member here, if she does visit this thread, maybe we can discuss it further.

Personally, I am not worried about Paul's credibility (or the credibility of the transmission of documents) on this point: I accept that Paul used and expected his readers to know whom he meant by his term the brothers of the Lord, and that they were Paul's natural contemporaries.

You've also got the next best source for HJ, GMark, that makes clear that Jesus' family did not support him.

That is altogether unclear.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... was-crazy/

It won't do to allude darkly to reliance on "current translations" when criticizing Dr Sarah's analysis of Paul, and then in virtually the next breath to cite dodgy translations in support of your own analysis.

@JoeWallack

I assume you haven't read my book and that you don't really understand the case I put forward. It really has nothing to do with "what sources say". The idea that "what a source" says matters is ridiculous if you don't understand authorial intent.

I'm saying that the Gospel of Mark can be demonstrated to be an entirely made up fictional allegory. Does the Gospel of Mark present Jesus as a human being? Absolutely. So does Huckleberry Finn present Tow Sawyer and Jim as real people too. So what?

The Roman legend of Aeneas being the father of the Latin people present Aeneas as a real person to, doing a bunch of mundane things in the real world. Doesn't make it real. Romulus and Remus weren't real. Moses wasn't real. These are all invented stories created by writers developed through literary processes.

Now, once we establish that the Gospel of Mark is an entirely made-up fictional narrative, all of the other dominoes fall.

What I do in the book is go through several major scenes in Mark showing how the scenes were developed from literary allusions to the Jewish scriptures. We can see that a given scene is a literary invention created by the author of Mark by seeing how the scene is structured in relation to its literary sources vis-à-vis the Jewish scriptures.

Once we conclude that the given scene is a literary invention of Mark, we can then evaluate that scene in other Gospels. The major example I use is the Cleansing of the Temple. This scene in Mark is clearly a literary invention. Yet, this scene is present in every other Gospel. If the scene is a literary invention, then the fact that it is present in every other Gospel means that the other Gospel writers are all just following Mark and don't really have any other knowledge or source of information about this.

What I've done with Mark is essentially break it down and identify the literary basis for every single scene in the narrative. Every detail of Mark can be accounted for. Roughly 70% of the material is based on the Jewish scriptures. About 20% comes from the Pauline letters, 5% comes from Josephus and 5% comes from Philo.

Of the material that comes form the Jewish scriptures, the theme of the scriptural references is extremely clear. The scriptural references are all about the fall of the Israelite kingdoms and the destruction of the so-called First Temple. The writer of Mark is using scriptures about the "historic" destruction of Israel to tell a story about how the Jews repeated the cycle of history and the errors of their ancestors to bring about a second fall of the Jewish people. The story is about how the Jews brought the First-Jewish-Roman War on themselves and how the outcome of the war was a punishment from the Jewish God visited on the Jewish people via the Romans just as the destruction of historic Israel was a punish from the Jewish God visited on the Israelites by the Babylonians. This is why the story so heavily follows the narrative of Elijah and Elisha, because the ministry of Elijah and Elisha was the precursor to the destruction of the northern Israelite kingdom, which was followed by the destruction of the southern Israelite kingdom.

But the writer brings Paul into this as well, showing that the error of the Jews was in not listening to Paul's message, just as the Israelites didn't listen to Elijah and Elisha. Paul's message is delivered in the story via the mouth of Jesus.

Now, once we understand this allegory many other conclusions result.

Firstly, we can see that the entire narrative cannot go back to any sort of historical movement (based on a real Jesus or otherwise) because the entire narrative is fundamentally a commentary on the First Jewish-Roman War and could only have been conceived in the context of that war's outcome. This means that no part of this narrative traces back prior to 70 CE. The whole narrative is a post-war invention.

Secondly, the whole narrative is entirely fabricated from literary sources (that have nothing to do with a Jesus person). The fact that all of the other Gospels follow this narrative means that none of the other writers have any real knowledge of Jesus outside of this fictional narrative either. They all use the core, entirely made up, story of Mark. If there were some real Jesus movement that had any real depth to it from prior to the writing of Mark, and the other Gospel writers were part of that movement and adding their additional knowledge of Jesus to the narrative, then they would not use this narrative in the way that they do. They would know that the narrative is concocted and describes things that didn't really happen and they would either not use it at all, correct it, dispute it or whatever. But the fact that they all use it leads to two conclusions: Either they know the story is allegory and are also writing allegory or they think the story is true because they themselves have no other knowledge of Jesus to go on.

My conclusion (not in my book, but as a result of further work) is that the writer of (for sake of argument I'll call it proto-Luke) proto-Luke understood the story was allegory and was also writing allegory. The writer of Matthew thought the story was true and was embellishing it with lies. The writer of canonical Luke & Acts was, like Matthew, a liar. The original writer of the first layer of John was writing allegory. The canonical revisor of John was a liar. It is interesting that Marcion railed against allegorical interpretation. It may well be that it was Marcion who initiated a historical and literal reading of the Gospel narratives and that all of what follows came from following Marcion in a literal reading of the Gospel narratives and disputing his version of Jesus through the invention of additional non-allegorical narratives and the promotion of alternative non-allegorical readings.

The belief that Jesus was a human being BEGAN with the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark is the writing that initiated the belief that Jesus was a real person. The person who wrote the Gospel of Mark knew that Jesus was not a real person. This writer's Jesus was a consciously invented fictional character.

But what about Paul? Paul's "Jesus" is Yahweh, quite simply. Yahweh is the son of El Elyon/Elohim. The Jewish scriptures conflate Yahweh with Elohim, but many Jews and related "God Fearers" in the first century disputed the simple monotheism espoused by the temple priesthood, Philo among them. The Jewish scriptures were interpreted by many as identifying two powers - a Highest God and his Son. Paul is talking about this. I suspect that the narrative from Ascension of Isaiah pre-dated Paul in some form and that Paul's ideas are related to Ascension of Isaiah.

Paul's ministry occurred prior to the First Jewish-Roman War. Paul's ministry was generally unsuccessful and likely had little impact. After the war, Paul's message likely gained more traction in hindsight from the perspective of war. As a result, there was a growing interest in his letters. Someone then decided to publish a collection of Paul's letters, but Paul's letters on their own aren't really that interesting or readable. So this person then wrote an introductory narrative to put Paul's teachings into a context that was more readable and interesting. That introductory narrative is what we call the Gospel of Mark.

Now, once this story started making the rounds, the story itself is what created an interest in Jesus and spawned the belief that he was a real person. Many imitators of the original story followed.

A difficulty is that this

I'm saying that the Gospel of Mark can be demonstrated to be an entirely made up fictional allegory.

Even if true, doesn't imply this:

The belief that Jesus was a human being BEGAN with the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark is the writing that initiated the belief that Jesus was a real person. The person who wrote the Gospel of Mark knew that Jesus was not a real person. This writer's Jesus was a consciously invented fictional character.

An especially timely counterexample premiered earlier today in Venice.

https://variety.com/2023/film/global/pa ... 235705117/

The allegorical film El Conde portrays the historical 20th Century Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet (1915-2006) as a fictional character (and one who is impossible to be real within the bounds of procedural naturalism), a 250 year-old vampire. The same mythology has been used to craft more positive allegory featuring a better regarded historical figure, Grahame-Smith's novel Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter which was also made into a film about a decade ago.

There is no earthly reason that the focal character of an allegory cannot be a real person who actually and recently lived.

And the cleansing of the Temple didn't happen as told? Is it your view that that is news to living scholarly historicists?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionp ... ables.html

(Colleague Giuseppe will vouch for Professor McGrath's standing as a Jesus-historicist.)